Now Kristin, I understand that tensions are kind of high on the List right
now, but I absolutely cannot let you attack my chosen profession like this,
unchalenged. I'll try and be nice, because I think (hope?) you were
honestly mistaken with a lot of the things you said here......
At 10:53 PM 6/23/01 -0700 Kristin A. Ruhle wrote:
>> I am - surprisingly :-) - noticing a lack of good spiritedness which I
>> remember as a hall mark of the list. I guess this isn't quite what I was
>> expecting when I restarted my mail from here....
>>
>Its just a reflection of the arrogance of the man in the White House and
>how he has pissed off world opinion.
So George W. Bush has taken away your good-spiritedness? Are you kidding me?
>The ecosystem has no respect for economics. What is dooming humanity is
>that classical economics developed before anyone knew anything about the
>bioshphere or ecology. Economics is now a millstone around the neck of
>humanity and may destroy us. UNLESS someone SERIOUSLY spreads a new kind
>of meme consciousness that ecology should be included in economics (Kinda
>like the radical proposals in KSR's Mars Trilogy.)
First of all, Kristin, I have said this before, and I will say it again -
economics is a *science*, not an ideology. Blaming *economics* for
problems is like blaming geology for oil exploration. Geology just
explains why the oil is where it is, it has nothing to say about *should*
it be used. Likewise, *economics* just studies how human societies make
decisions, it doesn't make those decisions for humans.
Thus, the ecosystem (well, the self-styled defenders of the non-sentient
ecosystem) would do well to develop a greater respect for economics.
Perhaps if these defenders had a better understanding of how humans made
decisions, they could engage these humans constructively in arranging for
what these defenders would consider to be better decisions.
For example, I think that there is broad consensus today among economists
that fossil fuel consumption should be taxed to reimburse governments for
the damage done by fossil fuel emissions to the atmosphere. Now some of
these economists might think, as I do, that the revenues collected from
this tax should be offset by across-the-board reductions in the income tax,
but that doesn't change the consensus on the matter.
Indeed, Kristin, there is an entire branch of economics known as
"environmental economics" that studies how human societies make their
decisions in regards to the environment. This branch has produced a
number of theories that have suggested both left-handed and right-handed
means of producing better decisions regarding the environment. One of
these is the Coase Theorem, which suggests that the simplest way to protect
the envirnoment is to assign property rights to the environment. For
example, you can bet that if somebody owned the Anacostia River, here in
Washington, DC, that owner would certainly put a stop to the pollution that
is pouring into it. Likewise, in Yellowstone, environmentalist groups
were basically given responsibility for the reintroduced wolves there, and
are required to compensate nearby property owners for any damage caused by
the wolves. If the number of wolves in the Park gets out of hand, then
the environmentalists will be forced to reduce the number of wolves to a
more reasonable level. For insight into a few of the left-handed
solutions, I suggest _Lost Landscapes and Failed Economies_ by Thomas
Michael Power, Island Press, 1996.
>Yes, stopping global warming and reversing the trends threatening us today
>WILL Do economic damage!!!! so no one can accept them . Huaman nature
>seems incapable of the hard choices and sacrifices that will be necessary
>to save future generations. Therefore we are doomed.
But, economic damage happens all the time Kristin! And we all accept
them. For example, every time you drive your car, your car grows older,
and more likely to suffer an equipment failure. Indeed, every time you
drive your car, you accept the risk of being struck by a drunk driver and
being killed. That risk most certainly constitutes econoimc damage. Thus,
we all accept economic damage every day.
The question, however, is what will produce the most efficient outcome?
And if you want a study of efficiency - then your friend will most
certainly be economics.
JDG
__________________________________________________________
John D. Giorgis - [EMAIL PROTECTED] - ICQ #3527685
We are products of the same history, reaching from Jerusalem and
Athens to Warsaw and Washington. We share more than an alliance.
We share a civilization. - George W. Bush, Warsaw, 06/15/01
